Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works March 27 20071 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 2 Public Works and Safety Committee 3 4 March 27, 2007 5 6 Committee Chair Barbara Brenner called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. in the 7 Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. 8 9 Present: Absent: 10 L. Ward Nelson None 11 Laurie Caskey- Schreiber 12 13 Also Present: 14 Carl Weimer 15 Seth Fleetwood 16 Sam Crawford 17 Dan McShane 18 19 20 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION 21 22 2. DISCUSSION REGARDING ROADWAY- FLOODING PROBLEMS NEAR THE 23 INTERSECTION OF LAMPMAN AND OLSON ROADS (AB2007 -156) 24 25 Joe Rutan, Public Works Department, stated the area is in the flood plain. There 26 have been frequent flooding problems. The road gets water over it, but hasn't been closed. 27 Water flows into ditches that are on private property. The ditches are no longer being 28 maintained. Staff is working with the diking district to get someone to clean the ditches. 29 One issue is to raise the road and install a culvert, but it may not solve the problem. They 30 are working with the property owners to get the drainage to flow. 31 32 They can lessen the flooding severity and frequency, but it won't completely 33 eliminate the problem. When roads are under water, it degrades the road. He will continue 34 to work the problem. He will report to the committee when they decide on a solution. 35 36 Nelson stated there are many roads that get water over the roadway. Rutan stated 37 he agrees that this happens all over the county. 38 39 Nelson stated that if it is a countywide problem, have a policy discussion. Rutan 40 stated staff will develop some form of prioritization so they can talk knowledgeably about 41 the problems. 42 43 Brenner stated the County should know about it if someone isn't maintaining the 44 ditches they are supposed to maintain. Rutan stated the County stormwater system is only 45 on County property or right -of -way. Many drainage problems are on private land. 46 Sometimes a problem on a private property impacts County property, so the County makes 47 it its problem when necessary. 48 49 Brenner stated she would like to go with Public Works staff to the site inspection. 50 Rutan stated he will visit the site soon. 51 52 1. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE EMBREY HOUSE ON LUMMI ISLAND (AB2007- 53 153B) Public Works and Safety Committee, 3/27/2007, Page 1 Frank Abart, Public Works Department Director, stated the property has no use or value to the road fund. Staff followed a process to surplus the property, which resulted in alternative considerations. Staff submitted a request for proposals (RFP) that would not cost the County any money. They were never able to find an appropriate proposal. Weimer stated the Council voted unanimously in 200S to consider allowing the house to be used for a public use. Before that, there was a property swap. Part of the agreement of the swap was that the County would let out a RFP to use the house for a public use. The RFP asked for proposals for a public use of the house, but it didn't say anything about anyone paying rent or concerns about the use of road funds. The Lummi Island Community Land Trust's proposal was the only one to meet the criteria of the RFP. After the County received the proposals, the Public Works Department all of a sudden changed the rules by asking for rent and then by saying the use had to be directly related to the road fund. That's the reason for all the confusion. The County put out a RFP for public use, and then started changing the rules. Brenner stated another condition of the RFP was that the use not cost the County any money. Fleetwood asked if the Land Trust proposal was to buy the property. Weimer stated it was a proposal to provide a public service in the house. They had to use the house for a public use, upgrade the house to meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, and do some general maintenance. That was in their budget. The Public Works Department argued that the Land Trust couldn't prove it had the money up front. However, they can't ask for a grant to do something until they have a place to do their program. Fleetwood asked if the Council still agrees that the proposal not cost the County anything. Brenner stated it does. Fleetwood asked the arguments against not going forward with the proposal. Brenner stated the Public Works Department says that the property can only be used for things allowed by the road fund because road fund monies were used to purchase the house and property. Jim Perkins, Public Works Department, stated he recommended surplusing the house because the proposed use of the house did not conform to State law to allow them to use it rent -free. They County would have had to charge the Land Trust a lease or sell the property to them. It appeared the Land Trust didn't qualify for using the house free of charge. It doesn't appear that the Land Trust could afford to buy the property. The fairest thing to everyone seemed to be to surplus the house. If the Land Trust has the money to buy the house, the surplus would make it cheaper than buying it straight out as a real estate investment. Now, it's a maintenance problem and is a potential danger to people. Brenner asked why the Land Trust doesn't qualify for using the house for free. Dan Gibson, Prosecuting Attorney's Office, stated the original intent was to remove the house. The community group said they wanted to use the house. The County pursued Public Works and Safety Committee, 3/27/2007, Page 2 1 a course of action regarding the purchase of the property. Subsequently, there was an RFP 2 to determine whether or not a party would qualify to use the property within the constraints 3 that they had, in relationship to funding. The administration hoped to work something out. 4 However, the community group didn't have huge amounts of cash. The group wanted to 5 provide an in -kind service that would enable them to pay the value of their use. However, 6 their proposed use was somewhat geared toward transportation, but also geared toward a 7 more general County purpose. The County can't use road funds for those more general 8 uses. That was the stumbling block in the end. It did not appear that the group had the 9 resources to pay for the value of the use of the property in relationship to what they could 10 provide the road fund. They tried several times to make something work, but were simply 11 not able to come up with something that met the requirements and worked for both the 12 County and the community. 13 14 Brenner asked if the County is putting a different value on the house if it is surplused 15 than if someone wants to use it. Gibson stated that if one keeps a house and allows it to be 16 used, a certain market value is assigned to the house. There is a significant market 17 differential based upon whether the house is there and being used or whether the house is 18 being removed or demolished. 19 20 Perkins stated that once the house is removed from the property, it becomes 21 personal property, not real property. There is a difference in value. 22 23 Weimer stated the County used the Land Trust's right of purchase to swap property, 24 in return for the County letting an RFP for use of the property. Nowhere in those 25 discussions was it mentioned that the use has to relate to the road fund. The RFP does not 26 mention any problem with how the house is used publicly. It doesn't say that the public use 27 has to relate to the road fund. Only long after the County received proposals did staff 28 mention anything about the road fund. Gibson stated the County operates under audit 29 requirements. The County cannot allow any use of the property. He was not involved in 30 writing the RFP, but it was clear to him, from an audit standpoint, that the County could not 31 use one fund for the benefit of another. They cannot use a road fund asset for the benefit 32 of the general fund. 33 34 Weimer stated the County didn't tell. the public that. The community put a lot of 35 time and effort into this and swapped property with the County based on promises. Now, 36 the County is changing the rules because the house was purchased with the road fund. 37 Gibson stated there was no promise made that the Land Trust would get to use the 38 property. Jeff Monsen was very clear about that. The County agreed to put out an RFP, 39 and the Land Trust was invited to submit a proposal. 40 41 Weimer stated the RFP didn't say that the public use had to meet road fund 42 requirements. 43 44 Brenner stated there was no discussion about road fund use initially. That has only 45 come up in the last year or less. Gibson stated Mr. Monsen asked him early on whether the 46 road fund could be used for a more general use that was proposed. 47 48 Brenner stated the Land Trust's improvements to make the house ADA accessible will 49 take quite a bit of money. Gibson stated he remembers extensive discussions about how 50 they could use in -kind services in a way to benefit the road fund. However, they couldn't 51 massage the numbers to make it work. 52 Public Works and Safety Committee, 3/27/2007, Page 3 1 Colleen Berg, Lummi Island Community Land Trust, handed out information (on file). 2 The information includes a list of meetings the Land Trust members have had with the 3 Public Works Department staff. The Land Trust purpose for the house is as a pleasant 4 gateway to the Lummi Island community. The Land Trust has been interested in using the 5 house since 2004. The Land Trust proposed purchasing the Carlile property next door, and 6 swapping that property with the Embrey house and septic system. The Council supported 7 the swap, and directed the Public Works Department to investigate the possibility. 8 9 Pete Kremen then told the Land Trust that a land swap would be messy, and 10 suggested that the Land Trust lease the property from the County. The County would take 11 over the Land Trust's purchase option it put on the Carlile property. The Land Trust 12 approached Mr. Carlile, who was in favor of this. Executive Kremen basically said this would 13 be the best deal the Land Trust would get. The Land Trust Board of Directors agreed. A 14 letter from Executive Kremen said that the County would trade the use of the community 15 building for the Carlile property purchase option. The letter said that the use of the 16 property had to be open to the community. That letter is in the information she submitted. 17 That letter led the Land Trust to believe that the house would be used for a community 18 building when they agreed to give up their purchase option. It's a beachfront property with 19 a septic system and a well. It was a useful piece of property. The Land Trust made the 20 mistake of agreeing to the swap in good faith. 21 22 The Land Trust submitted a proposal, and negotiations began. The RFP had no 23 mention of road funds. She asked why road funds were used to purchase the property, 24 when they knew the house would have a community use. The proposed use includes 25 transportation uses as well as other uses recommended by the community. The Land Trust 26 was willing to pay the State sales tax to lease the building. During negotiations, road fund 27 issues came up. During negotiations, the Land Trust agreed to be responsible for ADA 28 upgrades and allow the County use of an unspecified portion of the house. Long -term 29 maintenance was never worked out. A lease amount of either fair - market value or the 30 State sales tax was never worked out. Because the Land Trust proposed uses that weren't 31 related to transportation, the County decided that the Land Trust had to pay a fair- market 32 rent. The Land Trust got an appraisal to establish the fair - market rent. However, the 33 County didn't know how much of the space the County would use and how much of the 34 space would be related to transportation. The Land Trust tried its best to make sure that 35 there would be no cost to the County, but it didn't want to pay for the County's use of the 36 house. 37 38 The original concept was to swap land. The Land Trust didn't want to lease the 39 building. It wanted the community to decide on the best use of the property. The Public 40 Works Department doesn't seem to agree on their proposed uses. The Land Trust is now 41 operating the van program, which is related to transportation. 42 43 The Land Trust wants to know why road funds were used to buy the Carlile property. 44 The communication has not been happening. They didn't know that the property review 45 committee met or that the surplus would happen. They were naive about trading their 46 purchase option for nothing. 47 48 Janet Peters, Lummi Island Community Land Trust Treasurer, stated she is on the 49 grant selection committee of the Hutton Trust,, based in Santa Barbara, California. The 50 Lummi Island Community Land Trust is growing its membership in the community. She 51 described the Land Trust's van program. It provides consistent and reliable transportation. 52 The Embrey house can give them a wonderful space to store the van and provide a safe, 53 warm place for people to wait for the ferry. The Hutton Trust will help the Land Trust with Public Works and Safety Committee, 3/27/2007, Page 4 1 their transition period if it can move forward with the house. They would prefer to buy the 2 house. 3 4 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) 5 6 Peters continued to state that they would like to know what the road fund 7 requirements are. The Land Trust can do whatever the County would like, at no cost to the 8 County. 9 10 Crawford asked if the Hutton Trust would purchase the house. Peters stated the 11 Trust would not purchase the house. It will underwrite the Land Trust's purchase of the 12 house. She asked why the Land Trust did not just buy the Embrey House. 13 14 Berg stated that was never offered. The house was on the Embrey property. To get 15 the house, the Land Trust wanted to trade it for the Cariile property. 16 17 Crawford stated he would like to know from the administration about the possibility 18 of the Land Trust tendering an offer for the house. However, the County would have to do a 19 subdivision. He doesn't if the property is zoned for that. Berg stated the Land Trust has 20 researched that. There is a lot line adjustment clause from the Planning Department, 21 22 Crawford stated he believes there may be a lot line adjustment if it doesn't create a 23 new nonconforming lot. He would like to know the administration's response about 24 tendering a new offer for the property. 25 26 Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated the first question is whether the County 27 needs the property for other reasons. 28 29 Gibson stated one question is the County's interest in the use of the property. A 30 subdivision was an issue. Another question is whether there could be a lot line adjustment 31 or something like that. The third issue is the process set forward in Whatcom County Code 32 (WCC) 1.10 regarding the disposition of real property. It goes through the Property 33 Management Committee for a recommendation. Typically, a competitive process is 34 required. 35 36 Brenner stated it seems that the County has sold or given property to the tribes. 37 Gibson stated an exception to the competitive process for the disposition of real property is 38 when dealing with another government entity. He doesn't know if they can do that with 39 non -profit agencies. 40 41 Fleetwood asked if the County could condition the sale to make it favorable to the 42 Land Trust. Gibson stated he would have to look into that. 43 44 Kate Underwood, Lummi Island Community Land Trust Bookkeeper, stated another 45 factor is that the Land Trust received a special purchase price that was below market value 46 when it optioned the Carlisle property, which the County took over. Therefore, the County 47 was given that special rate because the Land Trust was promised the use of the Embrey 48 house. If the County bought the Cariile property without the Land Trust involvement, the 49 County would have paid significantly more. 50 51 McShane asked if the Land Trust saved a first right of refusal. Underwood stated the 52 Land Trust gave over all its rights with the understanding that the Land Trust would get the Public Works and Safety Committee, 3/27/2007, Page 5 1 use. The Carlile's believed that the Land Trust would get the use, which is why they gave 2 the County that discount. 3 4 Gibson stated there was a hope and expectation on the part of the Lummi Island 5 Land Trust that they would get the use of the house. The administration didn't think that 6 anyone else would be interested in the house, and that the Land Trust would get the use. 7 Only the Land Trust showed an interest. 8 9 Crawford stated anything can happen with a variance. The zoning is one per three 10 acres. There must be 300 feet of frontage and 100 feet of depth, so a subdivision isn't 11 likely. They can go to the Hearing Examiner to try and get a variance, but the Hearing 12 Examiner must work within a very narrow set of regulations. 13 14 Brenner stated she's trying to find a way to make this work in a way that it won't 15 cost the County any money. It sounds like the Land Trust has volunteers and people who 16 will underwrite their costs. 17 18 Nelson stated there are other funds that don't have those limitations. If the road 19 fund is made whole, then the problem of use goes away. That's an administrative decision. 20 21 Caskey - Schreiber asked if this could be considered park land for the purpose of using 22 real estate excise tax (BEET) II funds. 23 24 Mike McFarland, Parks and Recreation Department Director, stated BEET II funds 25 can't be used for acquisition of park lands. 26 27 Polly Hanson, Lummi Island, stated the point to all this is to better -serve Lummi 28 Island. The residents need more space for community activities. The Embrey house has 29 the perfect location. The County wanted 100 parking spaces, which it has achieved with the 30 Carlile property. The County should offer the Land Trust the opportunity to buy the house. 31 The fact that the house sits in the middle of a public parking lot and has been abandoned 32 for two years lowers the market value of the house. There isn't much market value left. 33 34 Weimer asked if the County can offer a 100 -year lease for $1 per year if the Hutton 35 Trust repaid the road fund for the purchase of this property. Desler stated they want to 36 look at WCC 1.10 before answering that question. It may be easier to declare the property 37 surplus, sell it to the Land Trust, and take it out of the County's inventory. 38 39 Crawford stated they can't just go sell a portion of a lot. 40 41 Caskey- Schreiber stated they need to first figure out whether the home site can be 42 divided from the rest of the lot, with a non - buildable lot on the back half of the property. 43 44 Brenner stated she agreed. She will support selling only the house site. 45 46 Hanson stated the house will allow the community to have meetings and classes in a 47 convenient location. 48 49 Caskey - Schreiber stated the road fund doesn't allow those kinds of uses. 50 51 Brenner stated she wants to see how the County can make this happen without 52 spending more public money on it. 53 Public Works and Safety Committee, 3/2712007, Page 6 Hanson stated non - profits don't normally have funding when they begin a project. They identify the project first, and then go out and apply for funding. Many County funds have been spent on things out of the ordinary. Wanda Cucinotta, Lummi Island, stated Lummi Island wants a community park right in front of a community building. It would own the shoreline and could get funds to restore the shoreline. The community can make it a community park. The Land Trust would be responsible for maintenance and liability. Use the general fund to pay off the road fund, so the Land Trust can purchase the house from the general fund. It's a waste of County money to surplus the house. Crawford stated a provision in WCC Title 21 allows a property owner, which in this case is the County, to voluntarily reduce a lot size and acknowledge a self- imposed hardship for the purposes of seeking a variance. That may allow the County to do a variance. However, there may be a road block due to sewer and water requirements. Bud Jewell, 3805 Centerview Road, Lummi Island, submitted a letter (on frle) and stated the Lummi Island Grange had submitted a proposal through the RFP process to use the house as a Sheriff deputy residence. At the time, they were first told that was possible. Then, they were told that the Sheriffs Office would have to pay for the property and the house. The Sheriff declined to do that. Now, the only people who can respond to a domestic violence call are the volunteer firemen, and they aren't trained for that. It would take hours to get a deputy to respond. The Grange withdrew its proposal because it was told that it would cost $300,000 or $400,000 for that use. Now, he's hearing they don't have to buy the property. Gibson stated the Grange submitted a proposal on behalf of the Sheriff's Office. The proposal had to come from the Sheriff. The response would have been the same, which is that they can't use road funds to sponsor a Sheriff's Office outpost. Brenner asked the administration to look into some of the impediments discussed, to see if they can be overcome. The Council has not been involved in the negotiation. That's not the Council's job. She moved to request the administration to bring forward a proposal, if possible, for allowing the house and the land to be used in some way by the Land Trust, as long as there isn't a cost to the taxpayers. Crawford stated clarify the proposal. Request the administration to investigate the possibility of a boundary line adjustment for the purpose of selling a portion of the property, including the area where the house is located, while still allowing the construction of a parking lot. Also look carefully at water and sewer issues. Brenner stated the intent of her motion includes Councilmember Crawford's clarification, and is broader than that. Nelson stated he suggests that they just hold this item in committee. The administration understands the desire of the committee to have this investigated, and come back in two weeks. Weimer stated the request should be even broader. See if funds can be switched so the County can lease the land and house to the Land Trust so the Land Trust can go forward with its proposal. Brenner stated that is included in her motion. Public Works and Safety Committee, 3/27/2007, Page 7 1 2 Crawford stated he encourages the committee to vote against the motion. Allow this 3 to move forward as a County property surplused for sale. If the Land Trust is interested, it 4 may find some value to relocating it to another property. 5 6 Caskey - Schreiber stated she is in favor of the motion. There is enough question 7 about what the Land Trust gave up when it gave up its right to the Carlile property. She 8 wants to hear more about how to make this viable to uphold the original intent of the 9 agreement. The Land Trust stepped aside and let the County buy that property at what 10 seems to be a discounted price. Also, find out if the County bought the Carlile property at 11 market value or at a discounted price. 12 13 Gibson stated the County paid the amount that the Land Trust had optioned it for. 14 15 Caskey - Schreiber asked if it was optioned at a price that was below market value. 16 Gibson stated the property sale price was within market value at the time the Land Trust 17 entered into the option, but not at the time the property option expired, which was eight or 18 nine months later. If the property had stayed on the market during that time, it's market 19 value probably would have gone up. 20 21 Berg stated that if it was a day later, the price would have gone up. 22 23 Brenner stated they can find out the date the Land Trust entered into the option, the 24 market value at that date, and whether there was a discounted sale prices. 25 26 Berg stated that if the Land Trust hadn't been involved, the Carlile property would 27 not have 26 parking spaces on it now. The Land Trust convinced Carlile that they had a 28 good relationship with the County to make this work. Mr. Carlile told him that he offered his 29 property to the County years before, but the County didn't return his call. The Embrey 30 house has both water and sewer. The water association has committed to providing water. 31 There is a functioning septic system now. 32 33 Brenner stated she doesn't know the condition of the septic system. It may have to 34 be upgraded. Berg stated it looks like a lot line adjustment is possible. The County can do 35 what it wants. Now, the Carlile property is working against the Land Trust when it was 36 supposed to work for them. The County administration is saying there isn't enough parking 37 spaces. The Land Trust has lost trust in the County. 38 39 40 OTHER BUSINESS 41 42 There was no other business. 43 44 45 ADJOURN 46 47 T me e ' adjourned at 3:03 p.m. 48 49 50 Y 51 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription 52 53 Public Works and Safety Committee, 3/27/2007, Page 8 1 ATTEST: Z 3 6 7 Dana Brannr���a Z • 'r *� •rte • BTVE or i INSI a see • WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Barbara Brenner, Committee Chair Public Works and Safety Committee, 3/27/2007, Page 9